Thanks for the reply, but you have not defended your words. [see below]
George Hammond wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <email@example.com>
> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> > ...
>> > What this means is that there is a subconscious mental activity
>> > influencing and guiding us that we are barely able to notice...
>> > and this is called "God" (all this is proved experimentally
>> > to 2 decimal point accuracy, Hammond 2003, Noetic Journal).
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > ...
>> > Now, it is manifest that all of human activity is motivated
>> > towards increasing our growth to "full growth" (becoming God in
>> > the flesh)
>> I need not say anything more. George's words above prove him to be a
> All of this was proved years ago by the SPoG...
Nothing was proved. What you do the entire time is try to convice everyone
that SPoG is yours. You now deceive people but supporting your claims,
based on non-existent proofs. Naughty, naughty!
I'm merely reiterating
> it here because it provides Dembski with the missing "causal theory of ID"
> that he has been so roundly critizied for not presenting.
> ID, now HAS a "causal explanation"... namely Hammond's SPoG!
>> > Because of this a "DIVINE SELECTION" term must be added to
>> > Darwins's "NATURAL SELECTION"...
>> Keep Darwin out of this please.
> I've been hearing a lot about how Creationist's keep attacking Darwin and
> Evolution. I used to think they were nuts.
'Creationists' _are_ nuts, from a scientific point-of-view anyway.
> Turns out they are right...
So you in fact used to be an atheist before changing your mind. Swinging
back and forth like that wounds your credibility.
> there *IS* a flaw in "Darwinian Evolution".... namely, there is a
> "Divine Selection" term that is missing in his theory. SPoG proves
> this. Christ!......... Darwin is actually WRONG!
No. That's a term you added. It's almost like shoving words in someone's
month and then attacking him/her.
>> > the bottom line is that persuing an advanced theory
>> > of Intelligent Design by using Statistics and Information Theory
>> > as Bill Dembski is doing could possibly (some day) yield a rigorous
>> > scientific proof of God.
>> You admit that there is no (rigorous) proof of SPoG yet. Finally! George
>> giving up.
> NO......... I'm simply saying that Dembski hasn't proved it yet.... but
> that Hammond HAS
You didn't say that. You say that now to defend yourself. It still raises
doubts regarding your own confidence in your own 'proof'.
> , and Hammond's SPoG (God=G_uv) actually
> proves that Dembski is correct about the existence of ID.
> There *IS* something wrong with Darwinian Evolution!!
> Nice to hear from you Roy.
Sure you like the attention.